 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2006-03-27 21:33
First off, this has been an unscientific experiment of sorts. I've recorded nothing on paper and it is only in memory. So you can all put away your slide rulers.
Secondly, a short background. Started playing sax in 1974, clarinet in 1978. So I have a few years into playing. I haven't ever had a real problem with intonation. I own a Normandy 4 (wood) clarinet which I bought in 1978 and a Noblet 45 1965 model. Both no real intonation problems though college. Used to be a sax performance major in college but switched out of music. In essense you could say I am a doubler and thru college I was a devote symphony type clarinet player. Never had an intonation issue.
Just recently, due to my less time on the clarinet, I decided to go to softer reed - from 3-1/2 & 4s to 2-1/2s. I haven't not played duets, etc w/clarinet for several years but primarily have been playing on my own.
Now to the interesting problem.
I was overhauling a Customers Leblanc LL clarinet. After finishing the overhaul for the most part I started checking it against the tuner. The customer said the clarinet was 20cents flat across the board for the most part. Which it was before and after the overhaul too w/my trusty Woodwind NY K9 mpc and M Laurie 2-1/2 reed.
Now the customer mentioned some research that someone shortened a mpc 1mm to bring up the pitch, rather than getting a shorter barrel.
makes sense ?!?!
Having enough clarinet mpcs around I choose a Selmer C85-115 for this task. I also have a C85-110 for side by side comparisons for after the test. So I shortened the shank (part w/the cork) and I raised the mpc body stop - part that hits the top of the barrel, both by 1mm. So, in essence, the mpc is 1mm shorter in internal volume.
in essence making a smaller volume mpc and hoping to bring the instrument up to pitch w/o using a different barrel.
Much to my amazement at this weird experiment several notes were in tune:
C below the staff, G & C in the staff, and G above the staff, I think also high C. Everything else was, well, whacko - sharp and flat though mostly still flat.
Now the caveat. This is testing with a 2-1/2 reed. I also tried pinching galore to bring it up to pitch to no avail throughout the non-modified and the modified mpcs. I also tried about 4 other mpcs.
Then, I pulled out a 3-1/2 reed. slapped it on one of the non-mod mpcs and, much to my amazement, the clarinet was very much in tune across the board. And Yes, this is all after a 10 minute warmup (mostly blowing hot air thru it as i kept the keys closed and some playing).
Went back to the 2-1/2 - flat. tried a couple quick variations of mpcs with the reed combo and the 2-1/2 was always flat. the 3-1/2 intune. Also noticed the same problem with my clarinets.
No real conclusion other than to keep playing 3-1/2s or harder from now on. Of course my embouchure changed with reed strengths and so did my air support (to support more resistance).
Any scientific guesstimates at this ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2006-03-27 22:56
Interesting experimentation, S K, I've had some related problem/solutions, more with the smaller cls, C and Eb. I've had a few Bb barrels shortened by a few mm, and never was happy with them. Having trouble playing my Eb AGAINST! a ?sharp? piccolo, I had the mp shortened about 1mm, but still had pitch difficulties with her. I had 2 good Bb mps shortened by about 2 mm for my old Conn C which solved that problem, perhaps requiring a bit more lipping-in-tune on some notes. To my way of thinking, the total "playing length" of the mp-barrel combo defines the pitch. [Is this guesswork OK here, GBK?]. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2006-03-28 01:00
The mouthpiece chamber volume must tie-in to the -13 mouthpieces Vandoren makes to improve intonation on Buffet R13s.
More work is needed. Evidently mpc volume is as important as the chamber length.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-03-28 01:44
The C85 mouthpiece chosen for the experiment is designed for a different clarinet bore.
It might be more telling to repeat the experiment with two stock Leblanc mpx.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2006-03-28 13:30
I've shortened my 13 series M15 by about 1.5mm - so now it's easier to get the general pitch up to and above 440Hz which I struggled with before, especially in the cold.
As I've got Series 9 Selmers I'm reluctant to shorten the barrels (67mm and 68mm) as using a standard Vandoren 5RV Lyre played sharp. Though I will try out a standard series M15 at some point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2006-03-28 22:27
"Any scientific guesstimates at this ?"
Here's my take on this... The thinner reed, due to it's inherent lower frequency of vibration capability, simply cannot keep up with the resonant frequency of the mouthpiece clarinet system (mpc, barrel, & remainder of instrument).
I believe thicker wood has a higher inherent oscillating or vibrating frequency and because of this, has no problem in keeping up with the resonant frequency of the instrument.
Here's another way of looking at it. In your mind, visualize a diving board of 3 inch thickness. Strike it hard on the end and it will have a natural vibrating frequency. If you were to replace the board with a 1 inch thicness piece of timber, striking it hard on the end will, of course, make it vibrate up and down, but, because of the thinner plank, the vibrations will be much slower.
I believe there is a direct correlation between thinner and thicker reeds. The air pressure is striking each reed at the same moment (time = 1 / frequency), but the thinner reed simply cannot vibrate as fast as the instrument wants it to.
All of the above is strictly speculation on my part.
Post Edited (2006-03-28 22:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2006-03-30 05:45
Yes, I recall shortening a Zinner blank mouthpiece that I had put a lay on. These mouthpieces seemed a little flat and shortening it on a lathe helped bring it up to somewhat normal. They use a special hard rubber that gives a "dark" sound. I guess I'd generally rather buy a short barrel than cut one off.
Piccolo players have pitch problems of their own, mostly that they tend to play sharp in general, although the third register of many piccolos is not as relatively sharp as many flutes. I wouldn't use a piccolo player as a pitch standard.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2006-03-30 12:55
Dan, a well thot-out and described cl-physical-concept [my attempt to "coin a phrase"]. I'm no devotee of Vandoren reeds, but believe at least some of their variety may be slightly thicker in bark area as well as the "initial scrape" area, and ? therefor better? for improved resonance ?? There may have been some spectra investigations of this, do you [and others] know of such?, it "sounds" like a doctoral thesis research project, doesnt it ? HELP ! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2006-03-30 13:02
Wes,
I have to endure sharp flute and piccolo players - they don't seem to have the concept of flattening the third octave by moving the headjoint cork away from the embouchure hole. On my Yamaha 674 flute I've moved the stopper cork 2mm away (so it's 19mm from the centre of the embouchure hole) and this has brought the whole instrument into tune with itself along with the headjoint pulled out by around 3mm - before it was over a quarter tone sharp in the 3rd octave.
But Yamaha flutes are built to 442Hz - so therein lies the fundamental problem.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2006-03-30 13:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2006-03-30 14:27
Dan, Don,
You are correct, this is PhD research stuff; and I wish we could get a team of music and engineering profs together somewhere to actuall do the needed work.
The idea that a high reed natural frequency is entirely correct. When two vibrating systems are coupled together and excited, they will ultimately come to synchronism. In our case, the reed and the clarinet's air column will vibrate at the same frequency and produce the desired note.
BUT, it takes a while for the two systems to come together. The number of reed cycles required to stabilize depends upon the natural damping of the reed and THE NUMBER OF ITS VIBRATION CYCLES. A stiffer reed gets through this transient quicker than a softer reed.
That's why a stiff reed helps get altissimo notes started better than a soft reed.
One of our recent threads refrenced a study that correlates the reed's torsioinal vibrations (one corner of the reed hits the mouthpiece while the other corner is pulling away). The work suggests that this twisting vibration in the proper proportion to the "flapping" vibration determines the quality (harmonic content) of the player's tone. NOW, as a failed student of acoustics (graduate school courses) that is mystified by the way a single reed works, I would have never guessed that a reed does anything but flap (if its balanced).
SO, lets recruit a forward-looking college to explore this problem.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2006-03-31 00:50
Shortening a mouthpiece will indeed make a clarinet play higher. It is the same as shortening the barrel. The bore in the mouthpiece is just an extension, in fact a completion, of the bore of your clarinet.
Shorter - higher;
Longer - lower.
Except -
You must take into account the shape of the bore at either point. The bore inside the mouthpiece is almost always conical, not cylindrical. By shortening the mouthpiece, you are - in effect - cutting off the bottom of the cone.
This will effect tone as well as tuning. It can also affect the tuning of 12th closer to the top of the instrument. The shapes inside mouthpieces and barrels, and in the bore of your clarinet, strongly effect the tuning of your clarinet. (Thus the sucess, many years ago, or the Buffet R13, with its "polycylidrical bore").
Of course, many barrels are REVERSE conical, so shortening from the top (as is usually done) also cuts off the top of the cone.
Research of course can be done on this. I don't know how much more can be known about this than we already know. Applying the findings of research, as IN GENERAL, as a blanket recommendation, will not be helpful, as different mouthpieces have different bore sizes (even within Zinner there are at least 3 different bore sizes I know of), and mouthpieces are mated with ALL KINDS of barrels, both from the original maker and third parties.
Then we work with many different bore sizes in the various makes and models of clarinets, and also deal with "out of spec work" as well as swelling and shrinkage due to humidity, temperature, and age of the wood.
So, yes, shortening a mouthpiece will make some pitchs higher, very possibly some more than others. It is hard to predict the effect on tone, without taking the barrel and the rest of the clarinet into consideration.
BTW - several of the mouthpiece makers you all mention on here have shortened mouthpiece for all kinds of requirements. I have done it myself.
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-04-02 11:16
Mouthpiece chamber volume is indeed important. I had a C85 and a CP100 to try over the weekend - and I noticed after a while that the CP100 was at least 2mm shorter than the C85 for the same pitch. Work that one out!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
